Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2793 ..

MR OSBORNE (11.46): Mr Speaker, I am not quite sure what Mr Moore is attempting to do.

Mr Moore: It puts the test back in.

MR OSBORNE: Just explain it. The government's bill has "suspects on reasonable grounds". It is subsection (1) (a), (b) and (c).

Mr Stefaniak: You are totally duplicating section 449T, Michael. You will add that section twice, that is all.

Mr Moore: I am taking "believes" out and putting "suspects" in.

MR OSBORNE: "Suspects" is already in the government's words.

Mr Moore: But Mr Stanhope's tests are quite different for it. That is why.

MR OSBORNE: Okay. I am quite happy with "suspects" over "believes". My understanding of the law in New South Wales, albeit it has been 10 years since I practised in my previous profession, is that the term is "suspects" rather than "believes". I would like to hear the Attorney's view on Mr Stanhope's amendment with Mr Moore's changes. They read quite reasonably to me, and I am happy to support Mr Stanhope's amendments with Mr Moore's amendment.

On the issue of "believes" and "suspects", I appreciate some of the concerns raised by Ms Tucker and Mr Stanhope about this. I, personally, have not been approached by either the police or the DPP about this bill, although my office has had a briefing from Mr Refshauge on the double jeopardy issue.

I have attempted to look quite carefully at the bill and the changes of Mr Stanhope, but I am prepared to give the police the benefit of the doubt on the issue of "suspects" versus "believes"-which I think Mr Moore will do as well. Obviously, it is something that is open to abuse, but in my experience, albeit an old experience, much of what police do is to suspect and then pursue what they suspect. But I do appreciate the concerns raised by Ms Tucker.

On a further reading I am quite happy to support Mr Stanhope's amendment with Mr Moore's change. I do not know what that will do to the numbers but, if anything, Mr Stanhope's (a), (b) and (c) enhance the section of the act and expand a little bit on what you had. So, if Mr Moore moves his amendment, I would be happy to support Mr Stanhope's.

MR RUGENDYKE (11.50): I am comparing-

Mr Stanhope: I quite agree. That test of "believes" and "suspects". In the end I come down to "suspects".

MR SPEAKER: Order! It is ten to 12. Mr Rugendyke.

MR RUGENDYKE: In comparing the substance of what is in the Attorney's legislation and the amendment of Mr Stanhope, I wonder why Mr Stanhope has taken out "(a) a thing stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained"-that is the whole objective of the clause-and left in "(b) a thing used, or intended to be used, to commit an indictable offence". Perhaps Mr Stanhope can explain

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .